Related
I am looking for some advice on categorizing a library of sound effects. I have a large set of random sound effects, (think whistles, pops, growls, creaks, gunshots etc). I would like to be able to take a growl for example, and find the next growl that sounds the closest to the original.
Given a sound, what sound from my set sounds the closest to it.
I have done a fair amount of googling and have found two avenues that I am still researching. One is using echonest, although their "best match" support looks not promising for public users. The other option is diving into FFT and building my own matching algorithm. This is a fine option and would be a great learning experience but I wanted to get some opinions from others who might know a little more about sound processing; especially short clips .5sec - 3sec range, not full length music.
Thanks!
I have worked in movie postproduction for years and as far as I know, there is no way to do that automatically. Every file has meta information in its file header which describes what the sound is like. You are then actually not searching for the file names but in the meta string.
I don't think that it is trivial to sort effects programmatically as two effects that sound similar might be totally different if you look at the waveform.
You would need to extract significant information about a sound that you can then compare.
I am also not a DSP expert, maybe there are methods to do this
If you're interested in trying to build your own system to do this, I can suggest a few keywords that might help to refine your Google searches. In the academic research community, the task you're describing is often called "content-based audio searching". I know there's been a lot of work done on it, and though most pertains to music, sound effects have definitely been the focus of a number of studies.
You might want to start with the work of Pedro Cano.
Also, I recently heard about a company that's doing similar work. You might want to check out products from Imagine Research.
Those are just a couple of ideas off the top of my head. I'm not %100 sure they'll be helpful. If they are, please let me know!
I've tried looking up how I might go about this for a while now, and maybe I am using the wrong terminology in my searches or it's way too advanced for me. I basically want to be able to analyze audio files in real-time. I know hardly anything about audio processing so I should probably start small and work my way up. Eventually I'd like to be able to display a power (or frequency?) spectrum correlating to audio playing in real time. Basically like the WinAmp spectogram (terminology?)
Any online tutorials with perhaps an API suggestion or two would be greatly appreciated. I've found some vague explanations (mostly dealing with calculating FFT's then converting them to something...) Like I said, I know little of audio processing, so knowing where to start would be great.
Language of choice: C++
You could look into VST plugins as a starting point for the theory behind audio processing. There's a blog with some tutorials in c++ here.
You can also check out other SO questions on VST plugins for more info.
I believe audacity can run VST plugins, I'll look at that.
EDIT: Audacity doesn't support them out of the box, but you can enable it. You could download a trial of something like ableton live too.
I'd recommend using a graphical tool to begin with to prototype some ideas. Try Puredata or something similar.
http://puredata.info/
Juce is a fantastic way to get to grips with C++ with an Audio slant.
http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce.php
I've also stumbled across UGen which might help you get up and running without having to understand too much of the sample-by-sample processing theory. I've not looked at this much yet but it looks interesting at the outset.
http://code.google.com/p/ugen/
The KVR forums are full of knowledgable people who will help and direct newcomers to audio and plugin development.
http://www.kvraudio.com/
If you're feeling brave the dive in to a good book. I've heard a lot of good things about the following:
http://www.amazon.com/DAFX-Digital-Udo-246-lzer/dp/0471490784
Good luck! This is not an easy area to get going in!
(PS, the blog linked in the above answer is mine -> it's out of date and wont help you actually do any signal processing)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've done a google search of this topic, but so far haven't found anything satisfactory.
From your experience, what's the best place to get game resources, like sprites, backgrounds, sound effects, music, etc.? To be more specific, I'm looking for more of sound effects and music, which I'm currently lacking more than graphics. However, for graphics, I've tried getting random graphics from different sites, but they just don't match. I don't want to copy one entire graphics package either.
The resources should be free and easy to obtain. The products I intend to make are free if not open source, and are unlikely to receive widespread attention or produce profit for myself, so I'd like something that I can use and distribute freely.
I don't have enough graphics and musical knowledge to attempt to create resources from scratch and don't know anyone willing to do so.
I'm working with Java. I'm sure I can read all kinds of file formats with it, or if not, I can always use software to convert resources.
In terms of graphics, Daniel Cook of Lost Garden produces some seriously high quality, reusable game art that is free for both personal and commercial work (read his license details). Here's the index of his free graphics related posts, just hit the "read more" link at the bottom of an article and you'll find links to the downloads.
edit: in terms of sound effects, Soundrangers is pretty decent if you have something specific in mind, but it can quickly get expensive. For a complex game, if you're wanting a rich user experience you'll need dozens, if not hundreds of sound effects. At a couple of bucks a pop, that adds up real quick. A lot of places (including Soundrangers) offer thematic sound packs which give you a little more bang for your buck, but it's still not free. GameDev also has a listing of audio resources.
For music, I think your options are better. Depending on what kind of thing you're looking for (ambient, instrumental, vocal etc). I would seriously think about approaching local independent musicians and using existing tracks that they have. They're likely to let you use their music for free (properly accredited of course) or at a reasonable cost.
There's http://www.freesound.org/
Most stuff there has a license that is incompatible with, say, Fedora, for instance, though if you ask the copyright holder sometimes they'll license things under a different license.
Music is harder to come by than sound effects. you could try digging around on archive.org, say here: http://www.archive.org/details/muzic
Also check out sfxr http://www.cyd.liu.se/~tompe573/hp/project_sfxr.html
though the sounds that it makes are pretty old school sounding -- and if that's what you're looking for, it's cool, otherwise, it can make some place holder sound effects.
If you're looking for interesting textures, I would suggest checking out Filter Forge. You can download the filters for use in Adobe Photoshop, or you can potentially use the sample images on the site to create texture maps for various types of terrains and materials.
GarageGames.com sells a lot of that kind of thing... 3d models, textures, background music and so on.
http://garagegames.com and specifically http://www.garagegames.com/products/browse
HTH
edit: whoops, I didn't see the "free" requirement! Do a search on "creative commons" and you'll find lots of music, at least, and some graphics.
Don't know if this is the type of thing you're looking for, but Game Sprite Archives has a huge huge collection of SNES/NES/Anything pre-playstation 1 sprite rips.
I just discovered this site the other day while looking for some sound effects:
http://www.soundrangers.com/
It looks like they're royalty-free but most of the sounds cost a buck or two. Looks like some sounds are free though.
Clipart
Open Clip Art
Textures
ImageAfter
CG Textures
OpenFootage
Texture Hound
I recommend Sound Snap, they allow 5 free downloads for a month for the free accounts, and more if you sign up. I have been using them for the past couple of months for the games I have developed.
Despite all the advances in 3D graphic engines, it strikes me as odd that the same level of attention hasn't been given to audio. Modern games do real-time rendering of 3D scenes, yet we still get more-or-less pre-canned audio accompanying those scenes.
Imagine - if you will - a 3D engine that models not just the physical appearance of items, but also their audio properties. And from these models it can dynamically generate audio based on the materials that come into contact, their velocity, distance from your virtual ears, etcetera. Now, when you're crouching behind the sandbags with bullets flying over your head, each one will yield a unique and realistic sound.
The obvious application of such a technology would be gaming, but I'm sure there are many other possibilities.
Is such a technology being actively developed? Does anyone know of any projects that attempt to achieve this?
Thanks,
Kent
I once did some research toward improving OpenAL, and the problem with simulating 3D audio is that so many of the cues that your mind uses — the slightly different attenuation at various angles, the frequency difference between sounds in front of you and those behind you — are quite specific to your own head and are not quite the same for anyone else!
If you want, say, a pair of headphones to really make it sound like a creature is in the leaves ahead and in front of the character in a game, then you actually have to take that player into a studio, measure how their own particular ears and head change the amplitude and phase of the sound at different distances (amplitude and phase are different, and are both quite important to the way your brain processes sound direction), and then teach the game to attenuate and phase-shift the sounds for that particular player.
There do exist "standard heads" that have been mocked up with plastic and used to get generic frequency-response curves for the various directions around the head, but an average or standard will never sound quite right to most players.
Thus the current technology is basically to sell the player five cheap speakers, have them place them around their desk, and then the sounds — while not particularly well reproduced — actually do sound like they're coming from behind or beside the player because, well, they are coming from the speaker behind the player. :-)
But some games do bother to be careful to compute how sound would be muffled and attenuated through walls and doors (which can get difficult to simulate, because the ear receives the same sound at a few milliseconds different delay through various materials and reflective surfaces in the environment, all of which would have to be included if things were to sound realistic). They tend to keep their libraries under wraps, however, so public reference implementations like OpenAL tend to be pretty primitive.
Edit: here is a link to an online data set that I found at the time, that could be used as a starting point for creating a more realistic OpenAL sound field, from MIT:
http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html
Enjoy! :-)
Aureal did this back in 1998. I still have one of their cards, although I'd need Windows 98 to run it.
Imagine ray-tracing, but with audio. A game using the Aureal API would provide geometric environment information (e.g. a 3D map) and the audio card would ray-trace sound. It was exactly like hearing real things in the world around you. You could focus your eyes on the sound sources and attend to given sources in a noisy environment.
As I understand it, Creative destroyed Aureal by means of legal expenses in a series of patent infringement claims (which were all rejected).
In the public domain world, OpenAL exists - an audio version of OpenGL. I think development stopped a long time ago. They had a very simple 3D audio approach, no geometry - no better than EAX in software.
EAX 4.0 (and I think there is a later version?) finally - after a decade - I think have incoporated some of the geometric information ray-tracing approach Aureal used (Creative bought up their IP after they folded).
The Source (Half-Life 2) engine on the SoundBlaster X-Fi already does this.
It really is something to hear. You can definitely hear the difference between an echo against concrete vs wood vs glass, etc...
A little known side area is voip. While games are having actively developed software, you are likely to spent time talking to others while you are gaming as well.
Mumble ( http://mumble.sourceforge.net/ ) is software that uses plugins to determine who is ingame with you. It will then position its audio in a 360 degree area around you, so the left is to the left, behind you sounds like as such. This made a creepily realistic addition, and while trying it out it led to funny games of "marko, polo".
Audio took a massive back turn in vista, where hardware was not allowed to be used to accelerate it anymore. This killed EAX as it was in the XP days. Software wrappers are gradually getting built now.
Very interesting field indeed. So interesting, that I'm going to do my master's degree thesis on this subject. In particular, it's use in first person shooters.
My literature research so far has made it clear that this particular field has little theoretical background. Not a lot of research has been done in this field, and most theory is based on movie-audio theory.
As for practical applications, I haven't found any so far. Of course, there are plenty titles and packages which support real-time audio-effect processing and apply them depending on the general surroundings of the auditor. e.g.: auditor enters a hall, so a echo/reverb effect is applied on the sound samples. This is rather crude. An analogy for visuals would be to subtract 20% of the RGB-value of the entire image when someone turns off (or shoots ;) ) one of five lightbulbs in the room. It's a start, but not very realisic at all.
The best work I found was a (2007) PhD thesis by Mark Nicholas Grimshaw, University of Waikato , called The Accoustic Ecology of the First-Person Shooter
This huge pager proposes a theoretical setup for such an engine, as well as formulating a wealth of taxonomies and terms for analysing game-audio. Also he argues that the importance of audio for first person shooters is greatly overlooked, as audio is a powerful force for emergence into the game world.
Just think about it. Imagine playing a game on a monitor with no sound but picture perfect graphics. Next, imagine hearing game realisic (game) sounds all around you, while closing your eyes. The latter will give you a much greater sense of 'being there'.
So why haven't game developers dove into this full-hearted already? I think the answer to that is clear: it's much harder to sell. Improved images is easy to sell: you just give a picture or movie and it's easy to see how much prettier it is. It's even easily quantifyable (e.g. more pixels=better picture). For sound it's not so easy. Realism in sound is much more sub-conscious, and therefor harder to market.
The effects the real world has on sounds are subconsciously percieved. Most people never even notice most of them. Some of these effects cannot even conciously be heard. Still, they all play a part in the percieved realism of the sound. There is an easy experiment you can do yourself which illustrates this. Next time you're walking on the sidewalk, listen carefully to the background sounds of the enviroment: wind blowing through leaves, all the cars on distant roads, etc.. Then, listen to how this sound changes when you walk nearer or further from a wall, or when you walk under an overhanging balcony, or when you pass an open door even. Do it, listen carefully, and you'll notice a big difference in sound. Probably much bigger than you ever remembered.
In a game world, these type of changes aren't reflected. And even though you don't (yet) consciously miss them, your subconsciously do, and this will have a negative effect on your level of emergence.
So, how good does audio have to be in comparison to the image? More practical: which physical effects in the real world contribute the most to the percieved realism. Does this percieved realism depend on the sound and/or the situation? These are the questions I wish to answer with my research. After that, my idea is to design a practical framework for an audio engine which could variably apply some effects to some or all game audio, depending (dynamically) on the amount of available computing power. Yup, I'm setting the bar pretty high :)
I'll be starting per September 2009. If anyone's interested, I'm thinking about setting up a blog to share my progress and findings.
Janne Louw
(BSc Computer Sciences Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've always felt that my graphic design skills have lacked, but I do have a desire to improve them. Even though I'm not the worlds worst artist, it's discouraging to see the results from a professional designer, who can do an amazing mockup from a simple spec in just a few hours. I always wonder how they came up with their design and more importantly, how they executed it so quickly.
I'd like to think that all good artists aren't naturally gifted. I'm guessing that a lot of skill/talent comes from just putting in the time.
Is there a recommended path to right brain nirvana for someone starting from scratch, a little later in life? I'd be interested in book recommendations, personal theories, or anything else that may shed some light on the best path to take. I have questions like should I read books about color theory, should I draw any chance I have, should I analyze shapes like an architect, etc...
As far as my current skills go, I can make my way around Photoshop enough where I can do simple image manipulation...
Thanks for any advice
Most of artistic talent comes from putting in the time. However, as in most skills, practicing bad habits doesn't help you progress.
You need to learn basic drawing skills (form, mainly) and practice doing them well and right (which means slowly). As you practice correctly, you'll improve much faster.
This is the kind of thing that changes you from a person who says, "It doesn't look right, but I can't tell why - it's just 'off' somehow" to a person who says, "Oops, the arm is a bit long. If I shorten the elbow end it'll change the piece in this way, if I shorten the hand end it'll change the piece this way..."
So you've got to study the forms you intend to draw, and recognize their internally related parts (the body height is generally X times the size of the head, the arms and legs are related in size but vary from the torso, etc). Same thing with buildings, physical objects, etc.
Another thing that will really help you is understanding light and shadow - humans pick up on shape relationships based on outlines and based on shadows.
Color theory is something that will make your designs attractive, or evoke certain responses and emotions, but until you get the form and lighting right the colors are not something you should stress. One reason why art books and classes focus so much on monochrome drawings.
There are books and classes out there for these subjects - I could recommend some, but what you really need is to look at them yourself and pick the ones that appeal to you. You won't want to learn if you don't like drawing fruit bowls, and that's all your book does. Though you shouldn't avoid what you don't like, given that you're going the self taught route you should make it easy in the beginning, and then force yourself to draw the uninteresting and bland once you've got a bit of confidence and speed so you can go through those barriers more quickly.
Good luck!
-Adam
That's a difficult thing. Usually people think "artistic skills" come from your genes but actually they do not.
The bests graphic designer I know have some sort of education in arts. Of course, photoshop knowledge will allow you to do things but being interested in art (painting specially) will improve your sensitivity and your "good taste".
Painting is a pleasure, both doing it and seeing it. Learning to both understand and enjoy it will help and the better way to do it is by going to museums. I try to go to as much expositions as I can, as well as read what I can on authors and styles (Piccaso, Monet, Dali, Magritte, Expresionism, Impresionism, Cubism, etc) that will give you a general overview that WILL help.
On the other side... you are a programmer so you shouldn't be in charge of actually drawing the icons or designing the enterprise logo. You should however be familiarized with user interface design, specially with ease of use, and terms as goal oriented design.
Of course, in a sufficiently large company you won't be in charge of the UI design either, but it will help anyway. I'd recommend the book About Face, which centers in goal oriented design as well as going through some user interface methapores and giving some historic background for the matter.
I'm no artist and I'm colorblind, but I have been able to do fairly well with track creation for Motocross Madness and other games of that type (http://twisteddirt.com & http://dirttwister.com).
Besides being familiar with the toolset I believe it helps to bring out your inner artist.
I found that the book "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" was an amazing eye opening experience for me.
One of the tricks that it uses is for you to draw a fairly complicated picture while looking at the picture upside down. If I had drawn it while looking at it right side up it would have looked horrible. I impressed myself with what I was able to draw while copying it while it was upside down.
I did this many years ago. I just looked at their website and I think I will order the updated book and check out their DVD.
I have a BFA in Graphic Design, although I don't use it much lately. Here's my $.02.
Get a copy of "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and go through it. You will become a better artist/drawer as a result and I'm a firm believer that if you can't do it with pencil/paper you won't be successful on the computer. Also go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of How or one of the other publications. I maintain a subscription to How just for inspiration.
I'll see if I can dig up some web links tonight for resources (although I'm sure others will provide some).
most importantly, carry a sketch book and use it. Draw. Draw. Draw.
Drawing is probably what I'd recommend the most. Whenever you have a chance, just start drawing. Keep in mind that what you draw doesn't have to be original; it's a perfectly natural learning tool to try and duplicate someone else's work. You'll learn a lot. If you look at all the great masters, they had understudies who actually did part of their masters' works, so fight that "it must be original" instinct that school's instilled in you, and get duplicating. (Just make sure you either destroy or properly label these attempts as copies--you don't want to accidentally use them later and then be accused of plagiarism..)
I have a couple of friends in the animation sector, and one of them told me that while she was going through college, the way she was taught to draw the human body was to go through each body part, and draw it 100 times, each in a completely different pose. This gets you comfortable with the make-up of the object, and helps you get intimately knowledgeable about how it'll look from various positions.
(That may not apply directly to what you're doing, but it should give you an indicator as to the amount of discipline that may be involved in getting to the point you seek.)
Definitely put together a library of stuff that you can look to for inspiration. Value physical media that you can flip through over websites; it's much quicker to flip through a picture book than it is to search your bookmarks online. When it comes to getting your imagination fired up, having to meticulously click and wait repeatedly is going to be counter-productive.
Inspiration is probably your biggest asset. Like creative writing, and even programming, looking at what people have done and how they have done will give you tools to put in your toolbox.
But in the sense of graphic design (photoshop, illustrator, etc), just like programmers don't enjoy reinventing the wheel, I don't think artwork is any different. Search the web for 'pieces' that you can manipulate (vector graphics: example). Run through tutorials that can easily give you some tricks. Sketch out a very rough idea, and look through web images to find something that has already created.
It's like anything else that you wish to master, or become proficient in. If you want it, you've got to practice it over, and over, and over.
I, too was not born with a strong design skillset, in fact quite the opposite. When I started out, my philosophy was that if the page or form just works then my job was done!
Over the years though, I've improved. Although I believe I'll never be as good as someone who was born with the skills, sites like CSS Zen Garden among others have helped me a lot.
Read into usability too, as I think usability and design for computer applications are inextricably entwined. Books such as Don Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" to Steve Krug's "Don't Make Me Think", have all helped improve my 'design skills'... slightly! ;-)
Good luck with it.
As I mentioned in a thread yesterday, I have found working through tutorials for Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and After Effects to be very helpful. I use Adobe's Kuler site for help with colors. I think that designers spend a lot of time looking at other's designs. Some of the books out there on web site design might help, even for designing applications. Adobe TV has a lot of short videos on graphic design in general, as well as achieving particular results in one of their tools. I find these videos quite helpful.